JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. S. P. Majmudar, the learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the original plaintiff and is directed against the order passed by the Commercial Court at Vadodara dated 17th December 2018 below Exhibit : 109 in the Commercial Civil Suit No.29 of 2016. 3. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised as under: 3.1 For the sake of convenience, the petitioner herein shall be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and the respondent herein shall be referred to as 'the 'defendant'. 3.2 The plaintiff instituted the Commercial Civil Suit No.29 of 2016 in the Commercial Court at Vadodara for recovery of Rs.2,03,47,500/-( Rupees Two Crore Three Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) with running interest at the rate of 18% from the defendant. 3.3 In the said commercial suit instituted by the plaintiff, the Commercial Court has framed the following issues: “1 Whether plaintiff proves that the velocity of the wind and other natural incidence and circumstances has direct nexus with electric generation from WEG? 2 Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff had satisfactorily completed its obligation i.e. supply and commissioning of the w WEGs? 3 Whether the Plaintiff Is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 2,03,47,500? 4 Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? 5 Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff had guaranteed to the defendant trouble free running of optimum output for period of 24 months from the date of commissioning and also performance of WTGs irrespective of natural circumstances as on site? 6 Whether the defendant proves that guaranteed power quality at Prausla and Lamba locations was of 441000/596000 KW/HR/SET/YEAR with 100% grid availability? 7 Whether the defendant proves that the performance of WEG supplied and commissioned by the plaintiff were not as per contractual and guaranteed performance? 8 Whether the plaintiff proves that the performance of the WEGs were not site specific ? 9 Whether the defendant proves that the wind regime of 2 sites and grid availability factor had been taken into consideration at the time of accepting orders? 8 Whether the plaintiff proves that the performance of the WEGs were not site specific ? 9 Whether the defendant proves that the wind regime of 2 sites and grid availability factor had been taken into consideration at the time of accepting orders? 10 Whether the defendant proves that the operation and maintenance of the machines and wind farms were clearly within the responsibility of plaintiff during last 2 years of operation farm after commissioning? 11 Whether the defendant proves that the defendant has suffered any loss on account of actions attributable to plaintiff? 12 Whether defendant proves that he Is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 16,31,22,000/-from plaintiff? 13 Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled for interest? If yes, at what rate and for what period? 14 Whether the defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?” 3.4 In the meantime, the plaintiff preferred an application under Order 16 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC'). The application reads thus: “Application under Order 16 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1 The plaintiff herein most humbly submits as under: 1. That the plaintiff upon settlement of issued vide Exhibit 73 has filed a list of witnesses proposed to be examined by the plaintiff and as a part of the same the plaintiff herein had mentioned that the plaintiff intends to examine the Officer holding custody of the documents pertaining to electricity generated by wind farm from the state load dispatch centre, GETCO Vadodara. 2 It is most humbly submitted that in view of the completely false and illegal written statement which has been filed by the defendant, the defendant herein has attempted to raise an alleged dispute about the performance of the WEGs. 2 It is most humbly submitted that in view of the completely false and illegal written statement which has been filed by the defendant, the defendant herein has attempted to raise an alleged dispute about the performance of the WEGs. It is most humbly submitted that in view of the said fact it is crucial and cardinal in the interest of comprehensive and proper adjudication that the facts pertaining to the performance of the WEGs are brought on record and since the total data pertaining to the generation of electricity by different wind farms pertaining to the Dhank and Lamba substation areas of Gujarat are in the custody of state load dispatch centre, GETCO Vadodara, the plaintiff herein humbly proposes to call for the Officer in charge and having the custody of the said data, (the details whereof which are required for the purposes of the present suit are mentioned in Annexure A) as compilations which are prepared by the said office. 3 It is most humbly submitted that the data and or information as is proposed to be obtained by way of production of document is absolutely relevant for the purposes of the present proceedings and will in fact make the facts being canvassed before this Honourable Court more clear and cogent and the same shall serve the cause of justice as the truth shall be brought on record by virtue of the said documents. It is most humbly submitted that it is n background of the aforesaid the plaintiff herein is seeking the production of the documents as mentioned in Annexure-A and for the same the summons may kindly be ordered to be issued to the Superintending Engineer / Chief Engineer / Officer In charge of the State Load Dispatch Centre, GETCO Vadodara, GETCO Gotri, Vadodara. 4 Further will be submitted at the time of hearing. 4 Further will be submitted at the time of hearing. 5 It is therefore most humbly prayed that ; a. Superintending Engineer / Chief Engineer / Officer in charge of the State Load Dispatch Centre, GETCO Vadodara , GETCO Gotri, Vadodara may kindly be summoned with a direction to produce the document as is described in Annexure A to this application; b. Any other relief that this may Honourable Court may deem fit in the larger interest of justice, legality and equality” “ANNEXURE A 1 Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Dhank for the months of January to December 2014. 2 Certificate for share of electricity (generated by wind farms at Dhank for the months of January to December 2015. 3 Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Dhank for the months of January to December 2016. 4 Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Dhank for the months of January to December 2017. 5 Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Lamba for the months of January to December 2014. 6 Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Lamba for the months of January to December 2015. 7 Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Lamba for the months of January to December 2016. 8 Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Lamba for the months of January to December 2017. 9 Other Certificate for share of electricity generated by wind farms at Lamba and Dhank as are available for other years.” 3.5 The Annexure : 'A' attached to the application Exhibit : 109 is the list of documents, which, according to the plaintiff, are relevant for the purpose of establishing its case. The Commercial Court rejected the application Exhibit : 109 by a cryptic order, which reads thus: “Order below Exh. 109 Since the document sought to be produced by summoning witness, may also be obtained by asking from concerned authority / Defendant which from proceeding reflects to have not been done by the plaintiff. Under the aforesaid since the document is questioned as liable to be brought by other side, therefore only for that purpose summons can’t be issued. Needless to state plaintiff may obtain the same and place on record which again would subject to appropriate order that may be passed. Under the aforesaid since the document is questioned as liable to be brought by other side, therefore only for that purpose summons can’t be issued. Needless to state plaintiff may obtain the same and place on record which again would subject to appropriate order that may be passed. In view of aforesaid when alternative is available the request sought for stands disposed off accordingly. Date: 17.12.2018 Commercial Court” 3.6 The plain reading of the cryptic order passed by the Commercial Court would indicate that the application came to be rejected substantially on the following grounds: [a] The documents can be obtained directly by the plaintiff from the concerned authority. [b] If the plaintiff wants to rely upon certain documents, then it owes an obligation to produce such documents and for that purpose, the summons cannot be issued to a party who is said to be in possession of such documents. 4. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commercial Court rejecting the application Exhibit : 109, the plaintiff is here before this Court with the present petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Dhaval Dave the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Pandya appearing for the plaintiff vehemently submitted that the Court below committed an error in passing the impugned order. Mr. Dave would submit that the impugned order could be termed as a non-speaking order. The same is contrary to the object and purport of Order 16 of the C.P.C. Mr. Dave submitted that the plaintiff as a Government Undertakings has to recover a substantial amount from the defendant. The plaintiff is in need of certain documents at Annexure : 'A' attached to the application Exhibit : 109, which are in possession of the government authority. In such circumstances, the application came to be preferred seeking summons to the defendant to appear before the Commercial Court for the purpose of production of such documents. According to Mr. Dave, the reasonings assigned in the judgment of the Commercial Court are absolutely wrong. 6. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Dave prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. Mr. Dave prays that the application Exhibit : 109 be allowed and the Commercial Court be directed to issue appropriate summons. 7. 6. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Dave prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. Mr. Dave prays that the application Exhibit : 109 be allowed and the Commercial Court be directed to issue appropriate summons. 7. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. S. P. Majmudar, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant. Mr. Majmudar would submit that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order. According to Mr. Majmudar, the impugned order may be cryptic, but at the same time, the final conclusion arrived at by the Court below is absolutely correct and this Court may not disturb the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Majmudar, if the documents are public documents and are in the custody and possession of a public servant, who is empowered to grant certified copies thereof, it should be the endeavour of the plaintiff who requires to obtain such certified copies whereof in the first instance and produce the same before the Court. If for any reason, the certified copies should not be issued, it is open for the plaintiff to approach the Court and request to send for those documents from the possession of the public servant. In support of such submissions, Mr. Majmudar has placed strong reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajesh Bhatia and others vs. G. Parimala and another reported in 2006(3) ALT 129 . 8. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Majmudar prays that there being no merit in this application, the same may be rejected. ? ANALYSIS: 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the Court below committed any error in passing the impugned order. 10. The Court below could definitely be said to have not kept in mind the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. while rejecting the application Exhibit : 109. Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides for summons to be issued to the witnesses who attend to give evidence or produce documents. 10. The Court below could definitely be said to have not kept in mind the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. while rejecting the application Exhibit : 109. Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides for summons to be issued to the witnesses who attend to give evidence or produce documents. It reads : "List of witnesses and summons to witnesses (1) On or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in subrule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. (4) Subject to the provisions of subrule (2), summonses referred to in this rule may be obtained by parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the [court in this behalf within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under subrule (1).]” 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the power conferred under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. has always to be exercised by the Court as application by the parties. In most matters of applications filed under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. the Court has to issue summons as prayed for by the plaintiff except in cases where the issuance of such summons in the opinion of the Court would amount to an abuse of process of Court or the Court otherwise considers it vexatious or mala fide. We think the contention of the learned counsel is well founded. 12. We think the contention of the learned counsel is well founded. 12. In Bhagchand vs. Musaji [AIR 1923 Nag 58], Batten, J. C. and Hallifax, A. J. C. had to consider the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. Their Lordships referred to an earlier case of Moti vs. Kanya, (1909) 4 Ind Cas 797 of that Court. They observed that that decision had held that under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. the Court had no discretion in the matter of an application for summons on witnesses if such an application is made before the day of hearing. The hearing may not be concluded on the date fixed and an adjournment may take place in the usual course of the progress of the trial and the Court cannot refuse to allow any of the parties to reap the benefit of such an adjournment in the matter of giving evidence. They also referred to Indro Chunder Baboo vs. Hamilton Grant Dunlop, (1868) 9 WR 530 and quoted the following observation there from : "There is nothing whatever in the Code of Civil Procedure which either expressly or impliedly declares that witnesses must necessarily be summoned before the day fixed for the first hearing of the suit. If a day, whether it be the first or a subsequent day, is fixed for hearing a case, the Court is not bound (and ordinarily ought not) without very good reason being shown, to adjourn the hearing in order to give a party time to summon or produce his witnesses......... But as long as the hearing of the suit merely stands adjourned, and so long as the party who wishes to summon witnesses has not closed his case, the Court is bound to summon them." 13. We may also refer to Abdul Ban vs. Hrishikesh, AIR 1929 Cal 459 where a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (B. B. Ghouse and Bose, JJ.) interpreted Order 16, Rule 1 too liberally. They pointed out that the function of a Civil Court was akin to that of a Post Office and the Court had no power to refuse to issue summons at any stage. The only thing that the Court can do, according to their Lordships, was not to adjourn a case for the production of a witness or production of a document by a witness who is sought to be summoned at a late stage. The only thing that the Court can do, according to their Lordships, was not to adjourn a case for the production of a witness or production of a document by a witness who is sought to be summoned at a late stage. Hence they pointed out that in such a case the parties get the summons issued at their own risk. 14. In Basant Narain vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 Pat 458 , V. Ramaswami, C. J. and R. K. Chowdary, J. observed thus in construing the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C.: "The law, therefore, is perfectly clear that as a matter of general rule the Court is bound to issue summonses to the witnesses if an application is made for summoning them at any time after the institution of the suit and before its decision and the Court is not entitled to refuse to issue summonses to the witness on the ground that the application was made at a very late stage though the Court is not bound in all cases to adjourn the hearing of the case to enable the witnesses to attend on the date of the hearing. But there is an exception to this general rule and that exception is that where the Court thinks that the prayer for issue of summonses to witnesses has not been made bona fide or has been made as an abuse to the process of the Court or the prayer is vexatious, it has got inherent jurisdiction to refuse the prayer. The power is inherent in the jurisdiction of every Court of justice to protect itself from the abuse of its own procedure." 15. In Balwant Singh vs. Firm Ram Singh, AIR 1969 Punj 197 a single Judge of the Punjab High Court had held that Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. does not empower the Court to refuse the issue of summons to a witness on the ground of late application. But the learned Judge recognised that the Court would have inherent power to refuse to summon witnesses only in case it finds that the issue of summons would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. But the learned Judge recognised that the Court would have inherent power to refuse to summon witnesses only in case it finds that the issue of summons would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. A decision of the Madras High Court in Jagannatha vs. Sarathambal, AIR 1923 Mad 321 may usefully be referred to in this context though it had not arisen actually under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C., Wallace, J., was considering a case under Order 26, Rule 1, C.P.C. relating to the issue of a commission for examining the witnesses residing outside the limits fixed by Order 16, Rule 9, C.P.C. The learned Judge expressed the opinion that ordinarily in the case of a witness not under the control of the party asking for the commission, who resides beyond the limit fixed under Order 16, Rule 19 (b), Civil P. C. a commission should issue as a matter of right, unless the Court is satisfied that a party is merely abusing its authority to issue process. It was pointed out by the learned Judge that it was not for the Court to decide whether the party would be benefited thereby or not as that was a matter entirely for the party. The learned Judge also observed that it was clearly the duty of the High Court to interfere, even in interlocutory proceedings, rather than permit a trial to go on an illegal course, which must entail unnecessary expenses to the parties and useless waste of time. 16. A reading of the aforenoted authorities leads us to lay down the following propositions. (1) Under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is the right of the party at any stage of the suit to make an application to the Court seeking that summons be issued to a witness either to give evidence or to produce documents. (2) The Court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the suit. (3) If the summons is not served by the adjourned date of the suit the party who filed the application to issue the summons would take the risk. (2) The Court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the suit. (3) If the summons is not served by the adjourned date of the suit the party who filed the application to issue the summons would take the risk. (4) If an application for adjournment is made at the instance of the party who applied under Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P. C. it is for the Court to consider whether or not an adjournment should be granted. (5) The Court may not refuse to order an application under Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P. C. on the ground that the evidence, if produced, may not be of any help to the applicant. (6) Though Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. does not in terms impose any restrictions on the Court, the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may refuse to issue summons in an application made under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P. in those cases where it is satisfied that the application filed was not bona fide or was vexatious or granting the application would result in an abuse of process of the Court. Except in these three above contingencies the application must almost always be ordered. 17. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upon which strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the defendant is of no avail. The Andhra Pradesh High Court decision is with respect to Order 11 of the C.P.C. According to Mr. Majmudar, the very same analogy can be applied to a matter wherein Order 16 of the C.P.C. is applicable. Mr. Majmudar has placed reliance on few observations made by the Court in para 59. The Andhra Pradesh High Court decision is with respect to Order 11 of the C.P.C. According to Mr. Majmudar, the very same analogy can be applied to a matter wherein Order 16 of the C.P.C. is applicable. Mr. Majmudar has placed reliance on few observations made by the Court in para 59. The observations upon which reliance is placed read as under: “Turning to the matrix of the instant case, it is discernible from the affidavit filed in support of the petition that a notice was served upon the counsel for the defendants requiring to produce the relevant records as enumerated in detail therein and when pursuant to the said notice the defendants failed to produce the documents, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code to direct the first defendant to produce their income tax returns for the period 1995-96 to 2001-2002 along with admitted balance sheet, profit and loss account, and details of capital accounts along with the statement of bank account of Aar Bee Enterprises for the period 1995-96 to 2001-2002 bearing Current A/c No. 3434, OD A/c Nos. 6125 and 6187 with Vijaya Bank, Bank Street, Hyderabad and also Current A/c. No. 3583 with A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad. Having regard to the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the application filed under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code is misconceived and is not tenable. It is nobody's case that the plaintiffs are seeking discovery and inspection at this stage. Some of the documents, which the plaintiffs want the first defendant to produce before the Court, are obviously, having been filed in I.A. No. 109/2004, available on the file of the Court and the remaining documents are in possession of the first defendant as per the plaintiffs' case. Insofar as the documents which are in the custody of the Court in connection with a different proceeding, Rule 10 of Order 13 of the Code envisages that the Court may on its own motion or on the application filed by the parties to a suit, sent for those documents which are on its own file or from any other Court and inspect the same. If the parties require the same, they can obtain certified copies of those documents and file them before the Court during the course of enquiry or trial while leading evidence. If the parties require the same, they can obtain certified copies of those documents and file them before the Court during the course of enquiry or trial while leading evidence. If the documents are not in the custody of the Court and are in the possession of the parties to the suit, it is open to the opposite party to issue notice as envisaged under the principles of evidence and request the opposite party to produce those documents before the Court. Non-production thereof pursuant to the notice will entail the necessary consequences as can be seen from the provisions of the Act, as discussed hereinabove. If the documents are public documents and are in the custody and possession of the public servants who are empowered to grant certified copies thereof, it shall be the endeavour of the party who require them to obtain certified copies whereof in the first instance and produce the same before the Court. If for any reason, certified copies could not be issued, it is open to the party to approach the Court and request it to send for those documents from the possession of the public servant. Rule 128 and 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice clearly envisage the practice in such cases. When that be the procedure to be followed, filing an application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code seeking a direction to be issued to the adversary for production of such documents is not the correct approach. Obviously, the application in this case has been filed under Order 11, Rule 14 and the Court below directed the first defendant to produce some of the documents while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff in respect of the other documents. Such a direction is not required as can be seen from the practice prevailing before the Courts of law and the legal position as discussed hereinabove.” 18. With profound respect, we are not in a position to endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 19. Such a direction is not required as can be seen from the practice prevailing before the Courts of law and the legal position as discussed hereinabove.” 18. With profound respect, we are not in a position to endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 19. It would be too much to say that the plaintiff should first make an endeavour to obtain the certified copies of the documents which he would like to get produced in the commercial suit, and failing which, he can only take recourse to Order 16 of the C.P.C. This view will frustrate the very objects of Order 16 of the C.P.C. 20. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the impugned order is not in tenable in law. We must interfere with such order in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Commercial Court at Vadodara dated 17th December 2018 below Exhibit : 109 in the Commercial Civil Suit No.29 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application Exhibit : 109 preferred by the plaintiff in the Commercial Civil Suit No.29 of 2016 is hereby allowed. The Commercial Court shall act accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.